we're fighting for the women?

[Hermit]

At the risk of going around in circles, let me ask you again: No unnamed major ever said such a thing? In other words, either Peter Arnett or someone was else lying? Describing the quote is a fiction / chimera someone must have been, yes? Is that what you are saying, or am I shorter of comprehensive powers than I realise?

[mistermack]

At the risk of going around in circles, let me ask you again: No unnamed major ever said such a thing? In other words, either Peter Arnett or someone was else lying? Describing the quote is a fiction / chimera someone must have been, yes? Is that what you are saying, or am I shorter of comprehensive powers than I realise?

Going round in circles is all you CAN do. Because he chose to keep the quote anonymous.
He might have invented it, embroidered it, or it might be true. You can never know.

It's not valid to treat it as the truth, nor to dismiss it as a definite fiction.
So round and round you go.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At the risk of going around in circles, let me ask you again: No unnamed major ever said such a thing? In other words, either Peter Arnett or someone was else lying? Describing the quote is a fiction / chimera someone must have been, yes? Is that what you are saying, or am I shorter of comprehensive powers than I realise?

Going round in circles is all you CAN do. Because he chose to keep the quote anonymous.
He might have invented it, embroidered it, or it might be true. You can never know.

It's not valid to treat it as the truth, nor to dismiss it as a definite fiction.
So round and round you go.

We could find zero sources other than Arnett. Single-sourced material is suspect, especially when it was in his interest to confirm the story.

[Hermit]

We could find zero sources other than Arnett. Single-sourced material is suspect, especially when it was in his interest to confirm the story.

So he lied?

My direct involvement was to search NYT for an article that was claimed to be the source for the whole smear. It didn't exist. I look at NYT for a month in either direction to confirm this. I then reported to Kali Tal, who combined that information with her other research and announced the sound bite. Her report looked thorough and comprehensive to me.

The Wikipedia entry references the source and date as "Major Describes Move". New York Times. 8 February 1968. I do not have access to physical copies, but the NYT itself makes the article available on the internet right here. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall. Have you or Tal checked it out?

[Hermit]

Oh, and would this count as supporting evidence? I suppose the veracity of the identity and history of Michael D. Miller could be checked out somehow.

[mistermack]

It is good evidence if it checks out. Not proof as such, but strong supporting evidence.

But the proof of attitudes is in deeds, not words, anyway.
The americans blasted a town full of civilians with aircraft and artillery, in order to kill some opposing troops. Those actions speak louder than any words.

And isn't it incredibly similar to what Asad is doing in Syria, and being so loudly condemned for it by, guess who, the US.

How incredibly two-faced can you get?

[sandinista]

It is good evidence if it checks out. Not proof as such, but strong supporting evidence.

But the proof of attitudes is in deeds, not words, anyway.
The americans blasted a town full of civilians with aircraft and artillery, in order to kill some opposing troops. Those actions speak louder than any words.

And isn't it incredibly similar to what Asad is doing in Syria, and being so loudly condemned for it by, guess who, the US.

How incredibly two-faced can you get?

Is there anything the US is not two faced about?